Are you a liar?

[F1fan]

I don't wish to have authority over you in any way! I'm arguing the case for Christ because I believe that people benefit from knowing the Lord.

And you could be mistaken what you think you believe, and mistaken that others can benefit from what you believe is true. Correct?

If you wish to pursue a path that rejects Jesus as Christ that is your prerogative.

This illustrates your ongoing problem, you keep referring to concepts in Christianity as if they are true and factual. They aren't. they are religious concepts that not only lack evidence, but are often contrary to what we know of reality.

I don't reject any Jesus. I reject the claims by people like you that any sort of Jesus exists. I've not seen any argument or evidence that Jesus exists, so when you pretend Jesus is real it in your interaction with non-believers it is an immediate fault on your part.

What I find is that many people do not actually understand the Gospel because they have been badly taught, or have not taken the trouble to study the scriptures carefully.

OK, what do you understand that critical thinkers do not? be sure to understand the difference between you making assumptions on faith and some sort of rational understanding. Could it be that you've adopted a set of beliefs and assumptions, like Jesus as savior, that you consider true? If so, this is not a problem of non-believers, but yours as a person of faith who cannot show your faith leads to truth via facts.

Most critical thinkers aren't looking for something to believe in. they are looking for what is true about how things are, and that means facts, evidence, and a coherent explanation that the intellect can comprehend. If your arguments and claims can't offer that, then the flaw is yours.

From what you have written in the previous post, it strikes me that you do not understand the Gospel at all!

Perhaps you mean I don't accept the Gospel from a religious perspective. I prefer to learn about the facts of who wrote, edited, and complied the various versions of the Bible. I prefer facts and truth over belief and dogma.

How would you summarise the Gospel message?

If I was going to summarize it I would look to some of the early believers. I certainly can't see an literal interpretation of the Bible or Gospels as credible or comprehensible or useful. I think Christianbs should interpret all of it symbolically, where salvation is a chance for the self to be saved by finding dignity, honor, love, charity, tolerance, openness, and other virtues by living in a heavenly state. By this honest approach to life a person will avoid living in a hellish state of lies, cheating, hate, intolerance, ignorance, self-deception, and other vices.

As it is churches can't cash in of self-love, so need the literalist interpretations of believers being filthy rags, unworthy of God, and must grovel toward s the middlemen to God and offer money for redemption, until next Sunday. The modern Christian model is basically manipulation of emotion, fraud, division, and humiliation. Look at what it has done to you. Are you like Jesus in any way? Have you once mentioned love thy neighbor? Trying to indoctrinate others is not love, but ideological greed and tribalism. Getting others to agree with your dogma will make you feel more secure. It just doesn't work for the soul, does it? Inevitably you're still exploited and afraid.

 

[F1fan]

Well, this is in direct contradiction to what Jesus teaches his disciples. Jesus said, 'there is none good but one, that is, God'. If only God is good, it means that all men are sinners!

Galatians 3:22. 'But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe'.

The teaching of shame so believers will submit and be emotionally dependent on religious leaders. And this manipulation still works today. The less confident and emotionally secure the person is the more attracted they are to this manipulation.

 

[sayak83]

Well, this is in direct contradiction to what Jesus teaches his disciples. Jesus said, 'there is none good but one, that is, God'. If only God is good, it means that all men are sinners!

Galatians 3:22. 'But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe'.

So what?
It is entirely in keeping with mine and the really true scripture... the Gita and the Upanisads.
Perhaps you should listen to the words of the true scripture rather than the pretenders like the Bible?

 

[danieldemol]

bible ' god is not man. he who dies on a cross is cursed '

As usual you are not providing accurate citations for your sources, which is poor practice because it enables people to make things up.

For example it doesn't say "he who dies on a cross is cursed", it says, "anyone who is hung on a pole is under God’s curse" Deuteronomy 21:23 NIV (note my use of an accurate source allowing you to cross check).

The difference is important, because the Ahmadiyya Jesus is hung, therefore He is under the curse of Deuteronomy 21:23 which does not mention that the curse requires death.

In my opinion.

 

[Redemptionsong]

That was David.

But to be a Jewish messiah, there must be an anointing by the Jewish priesthood.

Because the messiah is a civil, military or religious leader of the Jewish people.

Who will (in the 1st century CE) restore their political autonomy.

Jesus is none of those things. Instead he's the instigator of a sect that will pursue rapacious and often murderous antisemitism against God's chosen people across two thousand years and counting.

What kind of Jewish messiah is that? None.

No, it was not just David.

If you take care to read the scriptures you'll dicover that 'David my servant' is spoken about by Ezekiel [Ezekiel 37:24] long after David's death. Was Ezekiel referring to David? Clearly not.

All the key figures of the OT are 'types' of Christ and give us important insights into the life of God's Anointed One.

What makes you think John, son of Zacharias, was not a priest as well as prophet?

The scriptures provide an answer, if one takes the time to search them!

In Luke 1:5 we are given the following information about Zacharias:
'There was in the days of Herod, the king of Judea, a certain priest named Zacharias, of the course of Abia: and his wife was of the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elizabeth.'

Is this information accurate? If we look to 1 Chronicles chapter 24 we are told, 'Now these are the divisions of the sons of Aaron'. The divisions were given priestly duties according to lot, spread between the sons of Eleazar and Ithamar. According to verse 10, the eighth lot fell to 'Abijah' which is the 'Abia' of Luke 1:5.

What this tells us is that Zacharias was a priest, and that his son would follow him in the priesthood. But John took himself into the wilderness, and at about the time he would have started his duties as priest (at about 30 years of age) he was preaching the coming of the Messiah and baptising Jews unto repentance. John was attracting crowds because he was believed to be a prophet, as well as a priest!

Had the Jews accepted John's prophesying, they would have accepted Jesus as their king. Instead, they rejected him, and he was killed as heir to the throne. However, as we know from scripture, the story does not end there.

 

[blü 2]

No, it was not just David.

If you take care to read the scriptures you'll dicover that 'David my servant' is spoken about by Ezekiel [Ezekiel 37:24] long after David's death. Was Ezekiel referring to David? Clearly not.

He wasn't referring to Jesus. Jesus is mentioned nowhere in the Tanakh. If you're in doubt, ask your Jewish friends, the Tanakh being their book.

What this tells us is that Zacharias was a priest, and that his son would follow him in the priesthood. But John took himself into the wilderness, and at about the time he would have started his duties as priest (at about 30 years of age) he was preaching the coming of the Messiah and baptising Jews unto repentance. John was attracting crowds because he was believed to be a prophet, as well as a priest!

If you're going to be anointed so as be recognized as a Jewish messiah, you're not going to be anointed by your buddies. It's a big deal, declaring you're a leader of the Jewish people and so recognized by them. The High Priest does it. That's assuming that all the things you've assumed happen to be correct, although there's no record of them.

Had the Jews accepted John's prophesying, they would have accepted Jesus as their king.

You're a Jew in Jerusalem around 30 CE. There's yet another guy from the provinces in the religion industry with a small following. He kisses Romans. He's never been remarked in any of the newspapers, and his own family think he's nuts.

And you're going to accept this dude as your king? Really? Seriously? Your king?

Instead, they rejected him, and he was killed as heir to the throne.

There is literally zero sense in which he was "heir to the throne". And even had he been, the Romans would still be in charge, and he'd be just as subordinate as Herod.

However, as we know from scripture, the story does not end there.

His cult continues, the covenant of circumcision is abandoned because Paul thinks it's bad for sales (NOT as the result of any consideration by the Sanhedrin), by the time John is written the Jews are the enemy, and as I said, and as you haven't addressed, the result is two thousand years of antisemitism.

You think the God of the Jews sent Jesus in order to subject [his] chosen people to THAT? Really? Seriously?

 

[Redemptionsong]

He wasn't referring to Jesus. Jesus is mentioned nowhere in the Tanakh. If you're in doubt, ask your Jewish friends, the Tanakh being their book.
If you're going to be anointed so as be recognized as a Jewish messiah, you're not going to be anointed by your buddies. It's a big deal, declaring you're a leader of the Jewish people and so recognized by them. The High Priest does it. That's assuming that all the things you've assumed happen to be correct, although there's no record of them.
You're a Jew in Jerusalem around 30 CE. There's yet another guy from the provinces in the religion industry with a small following. He's never been remarked in any of the newspapers, and his own family think he's nuts.

And you're going to accept this dude as your king? Really? Seriously? Your king?
There is literally zero sense in which he was "heir to the throne". And even had he been, the Romans would still be in charge, and he'd be just as subordinate as Herod.
His cult continues, the covenant of circumcision is abandoned because Paul thinks it's bad for sales (NOT as the result of any consideration by the Sanhedrin), by the time John is written the Jews are the enemy, and as I said, and as you haven't addressed, the result is two thousand years of antisemitism.

You think the God of the Jews sent Jesus in order to subject [his] chosen people to THAT? Really? Seriously?

In Acts 5, we are told that there was a wise man in the council at Jerusalem, 'a Pharisee named Gamaliel, a doctor of the law'. He was not a Christian, but when the followers of Jesus appeared on the scene he said, 'And now l say unto you [Jews], Refrain from these men, and let them alone: for if this counsel or this work be of men, it will come to nought: But if it be of God, ye cannot overthrow it; lest haply ye be found even to fight against God.'

Based on Gamaliel's assessment of the movement and the claims, it seems that he was right. The spread of the Gospel did continue, and was accompanied by many signs and wonders. Now, it seems, some people are beginning to realise that to deny Christ is to deny God.

And anti-semitism? Is that not also explained in the scriptures, or have you overlooked the words of Moses?

Deuteronomy 28:1. 'And it shall come to pass if thou shalt hearken diligently unto the voice of the LORD thy God, to observe and to do all his commandments which l command thee this day, that the LORD thy God will set thee on high above all nations of the earth:'

There we have the promise of blessing upon the obedient. But what of disobedience?

Deut. 28:15. ' But it shall come to pass, if thou wilt not hearken unto the voice of the LORD thy God, to observe to do all his commandments and his statutes which l command you this day; that all these curses shall come upon thee, and overtake thee:' [There follows a long list of curses]
Deut.28:25. 'The LORD shall cause thee to be smitten before thine enemies: thou shalt go out one way against them, and flee seven ways before them: and shalt be removed into all the kingdoms of the earth.'

So Moses gives a clear prophetic warning to his own people.

Hosea says the same thing, but even provides a timescale for the 'diaspora' of the Jews.

Hosea 5:14,15. 'For l will be unto Ephraim as a lion, and as a young lion to the house of Judah: l, even l, will tear and go away; l will take away, and none shall rescue him.
I will go and return to my place, till they acknowledge their offence, and seek my face: in their affliction they will seek me early.'

The response to God by Israel and Judah is given in Hosea 6:1,2. 'Come, let us return unto the LORD: for he hath torn, and he will heal us; he hath smitten, and he will bind us up.
After two days will he revive us: in the third day he will raise us up, and we shall live in his sight.'

'Two days' is prophetic language for two thousand years - see 2 Peter 3:8.

So, the message from God is that even his own people will be forsaken if they continue in disobedience to his word.

 

[Redemptionsong]

If you're going to be anointed so as be recognized as a Jewish messiah, you're not going to be anointed by your buddies.

I've shown you from the scriptures that David was chosen by a prophet, Samuel, and was anointed well before being crowned as king. When David was anointed by Samuel it was 'in the midst of his brethren'.

It's the same with Jesus. He was chosen from the 'stem of Jesse' and anointed by a prophet already mentioned in the books of the Prophets [Malachi 3:1; lsaiah 40:3-5].

 

[Redemptionsong]

So what?
It is entirely in keeping with mine and the really true scripture... the Gita and the Upanisads.
Perhaps you should listen to the words of the true scripture rather than the pretenders like the Bible?

The God of the Bible claims to be the Creator of the heavens and earth. There is no other God, as far as l can see.

You have already stated that your teaching is based on law, not grace. That means you're doing what you believe is good, not what God says is good.

 

[Elihoenai]

Romans 3:4

4 God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged.


With an Honest Appraisal of yourself that you are a Wretched Liar, improvement is around the corner.

 

[F1fan]

The God of the Bible claims to be the Creator of the heavens and earth. There is no other God, as far as l can see.

You have already stated that your teaching is based on law, not grace. That means you're doing what you believe is good, not what God says is good.

So the Confederate States of America was correct in that it was right to own people as slaves, so long as a slave doesn't die after you beat them? Do you accept that law?

Does Jesus ever say slavery is wrong?

 

[sayak83]

The God of the Bible claims to be the Creator of the heavens and earth. There is no other God, as far as l can see.

You have already stated that your teaching is based on law, not grace. That means you're doing what you believe is good, not what God says is good.

The Brahman of my scripture the Upanisads is the absolute reality-Being and there is none other than That. Thus clearly the God that you believe in is a man made fiction as far as I can see. Why would I care about the claims of a fictional character?
Brahman and Its personal forms are the true God according to the scriptures and my good is based on the teachings of the true God. Neither on law nor grace.. but Dharma which subsumes and is greater than both. From my pov you have mistakenly taken the man made teachings and thought they are God's words. Thus according to your own definition it is you that seems to be lying, both to yourself and to others.

 

[F1fan]

Romans 3:4

4 God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged.


With an Honest Appraisal of yourself that you are a Wretched Liar, improvement is around the corner.

Perhaps you have been misinformed and unaware you're not repeating a truth.

 

[Redemptionsong]

Romans 3:4

4 God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged.


With an Honest Appraisal of yourself that you are a Wretched Liar, improvement is around the corner.

The whole point being made by Paul is that we are all wretched liars until we receive Christ by grace!

The only one pointing a finger is God.

 

[F1fan]

The God of the Bible claims to be the Creator of the heavens and earth. There is no other God, as far as l can see.

Yet there is a list of nearly 4000 gods in human lore, your God Yahweh is just one of them. And it is likely Yahweh came from a polytheistic system itself. It is described as a trial war god that somehow became the mob boss, as all other gods were whacked.

 

[Redemptionsong]

The Brahman of my scripture the Upanisads is the absolute reality-Being and there is none other than That. Thus clearly the God that you believe in is a man made fiction as far as I can see. Why would I care about the claims of a fictional character?
Brahman and Its personal forms are the true God according to the scriptures and my good is based on the teachings of the true God. Neither on law nor grace.. but Dharma which subsumes and is greater than both. From my pov you have mistakenly taken the man made teachings and thought they are God's words. Thus according to your own definition it is you that seems to be lying, both to yourself and to others.

Nice try, but the choice is between the righteousness of man and the righteousness of God.

IMO, the Jews (and l am not a Jew) were made guardians of the oracles of God, and it is these oracles that contain the unbroken truth of God's prophets.

I know of no other scripture that covers the complete life of the present 'heaven and earth', following one particular people, lsrael, from it's inception to its glory.

 

[F1fan]

Nice try, but the choice is between the righteousness of man and the righteousness of God.

A righteous man has the advantage of actually existing. Plus, what righteous God, the one that condones slavery?

IMO, the Jews (and l am not a Jew) were made guardians of the oracles of God, and it is these oracles that contain the unbroken truth of God's prophets.

Then let's defer to their interpretation of the Old Testament over how Christians do it (and often disagree with each other).

I know of no other scripture that covers the complete life of the present 'heaven and earth', following one particular people, lsrael, from it's inception to its glory.

But there are thousands of different interpretations, so that mucks up the "word" quite a bit.

 

[sayak83]

Nice try, but the choice is between the righteousness of man and the righteousness of God.

IMO, the Jews (and l am not a Jew) were made guardians of the oracles of God, and it is these oracles that contain the unbroken truth of God's prophets.

I know of no other scripture that covers the complete life of the present 'heaven and earth', following one particular people, lsrael, from it's inception to its glory.

It was not Jews who were the oracles of the true God but the Brahmanas... the knower of the true Being Brahman who were the oracles of God. Oracles that are preserved in the Vedas. The great Smritis provide the history of the Brahmanas from inception to glory. The story continues in all the Dharmic religions to this day.

Your knowledge is limited.

 

[Redemptionsong]

So the Confederate States of America was correct in that it was right to own people as slaves, so long as a slave doesn't die after you beat them? Do you accept that law?

Does Jesus ever say slavery is wrong?

The issue of slavery is used by some to criticise the God of the Bible, but it's a shallow argument. Did you not know that the Hebrews, God's chosen, were slaves in Egypt? Do you not know that every year there is a celebration of freedom from slavery at Pesach? Who do you think it was that freed the Hebrews from slavery? Why would God free his people from slavery if he thought slavery was a good thing?

Did you not also know that Jesus fulfils the law? He beings the law to fulfilment in the Spirit. This means that he offers people an even better freedom than freedom from external chains. He offers to free people from their inner prisons.

Did you know that you can be a slave and still be free from sin? Did you know that a lifetime of slavery on earth cannot prevent an eternal life of freedom?

 

[Redemptionsong]

It was not Jews who were the oracles of the true God but the Brahmanas... the knower of the true Being Brahman who were the oracles of God. Oracles that are preserved in the Vedas. The great Smritis provide the history of the Brahmanas from inception to glory. The story continues in all the Dharmic religions to this day.

Your knowledge is limited.

What is the Holy Spirit within your religion?